Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T22:11:02.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Should We Care About the Concept of Knowledge?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Hilary Kornblith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Can we learn something interesting about knowledge by examining our concept of knowledge? Quite a bit, many argue. My own view, however, is that the concept of knowledge is of little epistemological interest. In this paper, I critically examine one particularly interesting defense of the view that the concept of knowledge is of great epistemological interest: Edward Craig's Knowledge and the State of Nature. A minimalist view about the value of examining our concept of knowledge is defended.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 38 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bloomfield, Paul. 2001. Moral Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boorse, Christopher. 1977. “Health as a Theoretical Concept.” Philosophy of Science 44: 542–73.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. 1979. “Metaphor and Theory Change: What is ‘Metaphor’ a Metaphor for?” In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 356–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 2000. Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, Dorothy and Robert, Seyfarth. 1990. How Monkeys See the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Edward. 1990. Knowledge and the State of Nature: An Essay in Conceptual Synthesis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Crosland, Maurice. 1962. Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 2005. “Kornblith's Naturalistic Epistemology.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 403–10.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 2007. “Philosophical Intuitions: Their Target, Their Source, and Their Epistemic Status.” Grazer Philosophische Studien 74: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugeland, John. 1998. Having Thought: Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1996. The Lives to Come: The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 1980. “Referring to Artifacts.” Philosophical Review 89: 109–14.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 2002. Knowledge and its Place in Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 2005. “Replies to Alvin Goldman, Martin Kusch, andWilliam Talbott.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 427–41.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 2007a. “How to Refer to Artifacts.” In Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds.), Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and their Representation, pp. 138–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 2007b. “The Metaphysical Status of Knowledge.” Philosophical Issues 17: 145–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusch, Martin. 2002. Knowledge by Agreement: The Programme of Communitarian Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kusch, Martin. 2005. “Beliefs, Kinds and Rules.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 411–9.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. 1996. Mind and World, with a New Introduction by the Author. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth. 1993. White Queen Psychology and Other Essays for Alice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Povinelli, Daniel and Timothy, Eddy. 1996. “What Young Chimpanzees Know About Seeing.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 61: 1–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putnam, Hilary. 1975. “The Meaning of ‘Meaning.’” In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, vol. 2, pp. 215–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Stephen. 1978. “Putnam on Artifacts.” Philosophical Review 87: 566–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szasz, Thomas. 1961. The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Talbott, William. 2005. “Universal Knowledge.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71: 420–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomasson, Amie. 2007. “Artifacts and Human Concepts.” In Margolis, E. and Laurence, S. (eds.), Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and their Representation, pp. 52–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1996. “Chimpanzee Social Cognition.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 61: 161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Michael. 2004. “Is Knowledge a Natural Phenomenon?” In Schantz, R. (ed.), The Externalist Challenge, pp. 193–209. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar